Monday, November 10, 2008

I don't know if anyone's been following the Lindsay Lohan and Samantha Ronson saga. Well, not really a saga, more a game of cat and mouse with the media. Lindsay's been slowly working her way round to acknowledging she's in a relationship with Ronson. I find these stories of celebrities coming out of the closet fascinating. Today this tidbit appeared on Yahoo!News: Lindsay Lohan Opens Up About her Relationship with Samantha Ronson. According to an interview in Harper's Bazaar, Lohan acknowledged she's been seeing Ronson "for quite some time," and that most of her family is supportive. The most amusing parts were that "when asked if she had previously "been with a girl" by Harper's, the actress replied, "I don't know, maybe." LOL Must have been before rehab. And this is totally cool:

"Lindsay said she does not consider herself a lesbian, but as for whether she thinks of herself as bisexual, she told the magazine, "maybe." "I don't want to classify myself," she continued. "First of all, you never know what's going to happen -- tomorrow, in a month, a year from now, five years from now. I appreciate people, and it doesn't matter who they are, and I feel blessed to be able to feel comfortable enough with myself that I can say that."

Of course, my prediction is, after she and Ronson break up, she'll be with a man.

Proposition 8 and other Anti-Gay Ballot Initiatives

This is one that requires some more research. These anti-gay ballot initiatives are a quadrennial favorite. Gah, when are they going to quit with this? The California one is the worst because it took away a right that had already been given, twice in the case of San Francisco. The actual text of the new law is: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in CA.” It's only a matter of time, folks. The hodge podge of gay marriage laws in this country is not going to last. You just can't have a couple of states here and there allowing same-sex marriages, a couple of other ones allowing some form of civil union or domestic partnership. As a legal matter, this is not going to work in the long run. That's why every state has laws recognizing traditional marriages performed in other states. It would be a legal nightmare if you didn't. And that's what will happen with same-sex marriages. How many decades it will take, who knows? But eventually it will be legal in every state, and the federal government will have to recognize it and give same-sex couples the same benefits and rights as traditional married couples. And now that more same-sex couples are having children, the complications from the crazy quilt of laws will get even more ridiculous. This is exactly why federal law pre-empts state law in some areas, because it makes no sense to have 50 different versions of laws covering the same topic (e.g. immigration).

The boycott of the State of Utah strikes me as slightly absurd. The State of Utah is not the same as the Mormon church. Not everyone in Utah is a Mormon. Isn't it more likely to hurt random Utah residents rather than the Mormon church? Not sure about that one.

(This blog is ending up being a lot more about gay stuff than I expected, by the way.)

Rachel Maddow

Rachel, Rachel, how do I love thee, let me count the ways. To be honest, I haven't seen that much of her political talk show on MSNBC yet. But it's hard not to love this totally out, sharp as a tack, Rhodes Scholar, lefty-liberal TV and radio personality. She also has a show on Air America. She's gotten a ton of media lately: a profile in New York Magazine The Dr. Maddow Show, November 2, 2008, another profile in The Advocate, The New American Classic, and inclusion in Out magazine's Out 100: The Men and Women Who Made 2008 a Year to Remember, with a total glamour shot that makes her look like a 1940's movie star.

The first time I saw her on TV, before I knew anything about her, I knew she was a lesbian. It's pretty obvious. In the New York magazine article, she says that she always wears grey suits on TV so no one can say anything about what she wears, so discussion about her clothes won't detract from the content of the show. LOL. (so I'll make a comment about her make-up - sorry, Rachel.) They started her off with very pink, pale make-up, which didn't suit her. You can really tell that she isn't someone who normally wears make-up and The Advocate article confirmed that. They seemed to have improved that and the makeup is more subtle now. I'll never forget reading an article in The Washington Post about "the new face" of TV political pundits, where they mentioned several African-American and Latino commentators, and...Rachel Maddow. I thought, well, it must be because she's a lesbian. Nope. Because she's a young woman! They didn't mention the fact that she's a lesbian at all. (she's totally out, that's not the issue). I was shocked. It's fantastic to have an out lesbian have a successful political show on TV, and her sexuality isn't even an issue. (Also see "Ellen" and the defunct "Rosie" for similar.) I predict Rachel Maddow is going to be big for a long time to come.

Mini-plug for one of the objects of my obsession with the TV show Torchwood (see right sidebar), John Barrowman, who's also on the Out 100 list, with a similarly glamourous photo. John Barrowman in bed here, making fangirls and boys happy the world over. And I loved this Victor/Victoria shot of another Out 100 nominee, Diana Nyad, here. The Out photographers rock!